Anita Dunn...

[Oldandtired]

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

They did so in a sensationalist way designed to obscure the truth and succeeded to such an extent that even now people on this forum are calling for her head as a "Pink Commie Sympathizer" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Dunn's expressed attitude, listening to the entire clip can be summed up as
"Work hard for your goal and don't let someone else tell you what it should be."
Which part of that statement is unamerican?

To add to what I said below....I must ask you...

Who questioned the quote itself and the meaning of it?

The attack on Dunn was based STRICTLY on her saying that Mao was one of her two favorite political philosophers......yet you seem to believe that she was questioned for quoting Mao.....?????

That NEVER happened.....I find your asking what is unAmerican about her quote quite deflective. Nothingt is unAmerican with her citing a quote...nor the meaning of the quote.

I want to know WHAT OTHER things about Mao make him one of her two FAVORITE political philosophers......dont you?

If not....why?

 

[saveliberty]

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

They did so in a sensationalist way designed to obscure the truth and succeeded to such an extent that even now people on this forum are calling for her head as a "Pink Commie Sympathizer" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Dunn's expressed attitude, listening to the entire clip can be summed up as
"Work hard for your goal and don't let someone else tell you what it should be."
Which part of that statement is unamerican?

Dressing up doctors in lab coats for televised news ops is sensationalist too. Labeling those who disagree with your assessment of health care as "misinformation", while you are doing the exact same thing is nothing more than sensationalism and being untruthful. We have the playbook now folks. Just borrowing a page or two.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is an example of why I can't take anything Glenn Beck says seriously or Fox News really:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/92279-fox-news-must-be-having-budget-issues.html

You are even dumber than I originally thought.

 

[Oldandtired]

This is an example of why I can't take anything Glenn Beck says seriously or Fox News really:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/92279-fox-news-must-be-having-budget-issues.html

Wow....you actually posted this?
Do yourself a favor...stop listening to people and watch the factsd.
That loser said she was obviously joking...and of course, you assume he is telling you the truth. Watch the clip of Dunn...she is not joking, never was and no way can it be spun that she may have been joking.

She 3 times emphatically and seriously said that Mao was one of her two favorite philosophers....and she never ONCE said or even implied she was joking.

Amazing how people simply make judgement calls based on what someone else says.

Pathetic.

 

[Coyote]

Simple answer coyote.....they did not do what you claim.
They admitted that THEY were told by the kids that they were not turned away...and when the fessed up to it, Fox reported it.

They didn't verify before reporting. A bit like Dan Rather that.

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti_6fSpVrHM]YouTube - Lying Sack of Shit Insanely Claims that Anita Dunn "Worships" Mao Zedong[/ame]

They did not lie about Jones. They reported that he was arrested..and he was.....and they pointed out how in the late 90's he declared himself as a communist...and so far, to date, there has not been a retraction from him for that statement. They offered him an opportunity to denounce his statement and he refused.

Beck said"This is a convicted felon, a guy who spent, I think, six months in prison after the Rodney King beating."


As to commie - there needs to be a retraction? The fact that he is clearly a capitalist and clearly espousing capitalism as a means of social change in his writings? When you change political beliefs do you "retract"? To say that he "is" a Communist implies membership in the communist party, for one. To say that he "is" a Communist deliberately ignores actions, speeches, and writing to the contrary. I don't know about you but where I come from they call that "lying". If they said he "was" a communist, or was once an avowed communist, that would be truth. But, that wouldn't help his agenda of fearmongering would it?

They claimed

So it seems YOUR information are the lies.

You obviously dont watch Fix nbews......for if you did, you would not be posting the stuff you are posting.

You think? You have yet to back up your claims.

You are allowing others to feed you words...and it is making you look foolish.

OldandTired, i think you are the one being fed "words" and looking foolish here. I provided a complete transcript of Dunn's speech in post 223 which you seem to have ignored.


You claimed:

I will again suggest you listen to her speech. You are making an ass of yourself...and I would thasnk YOUR media for it.

Whenever possible, I try to find a written transcript. Written words are easier to analyze and examine and research back into than video clips. A search for a transcript of Dunn's school speech yielded interesting results. First - many (rightwing) sources provided a transcript that ended at the second or third paragraph. That might seem complete superficially but it's odd because it doesn't "work" as a speech. She brings up both Mother Theresa and Mao in her opening, but never, as you noted, goes on to bring anything of Mother Theresa into the speech. How odd. A further search looking for "complete transcript" yields the missing paragraph that ties the whole speech together and gives lie to your claim "But her accolades for Moa continued...she never brought up Mother Teresa after that......it was not her first line that was diusturbing....it was her obvilous adoration for Mao AND HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS that she discussed."

Tell me again, OldandTired, who's media is doing what here?

Stop commenting on something you did not watch entirely....it is not in the best interest of your credibility.

Did YOU watch it in it's entirety? I will echo your quote: "And yes...it is quite obvious you just listened to a snippet...if you listened to the entire thing, my guess is you would not even post in this thread"

THERE IS NO WAY ONE CAN SPIN WHAT SHE SAID.....liten to it...in its entirety....you will see my point.

The entire transcript proves another interesting point in that via the internet rumormill - she is repeatedly accused of saying something she didn't actually say which is that they are two of her favorite political philosophers whom she turns to most but they leave out the qualifying clause which changes the meaning somewhat - she turns to them to deliver a specific point - and it is a good and worthwhile point.

What she said was: "And then the 3rd lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers. Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa, not often couple with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is you’re going to make choices, you’re going to challenge, you’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal, these are your choices, they’re no one else’s"

The sad thing is - this is a damn good talk to give to highschool kids. It's too bad that the wingnuts can only see indoctrination of maoist ideology and adoration of a mass murderer. It hints of venomous desperation and sadly bitter political divides.

 

[Oldandtired]

Simple answer coyote.....they did not do what you claim.
They admitted that THEY were told by the kids that they were not turned away...and when the fessed up to it, Fox reported it.

They didn't verify before reporting. A bit like Dan Rather that.

Fox did not say that Dunn worshippede Mao...they reported that she said he was one of her two favorite political philosphers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti_6fSpVrHM]YouTube - Lying Sack of Shit Insanely Claims that Anita Dunn "Worships" Mao Zedong[/ame]



Beck said"This is a convicted felon, a guy who spent, I think, six months in prison after the Rodney King beating."


As to commie - there needs to be a retraction? The fact that he is clearly a capitalist and clearly espousing capitalism as a means of social change in his writings? When you change political beliefs do you "retract"? To say that he "is" a Communist implies membership in the communist party, for one. To say that he "is" a Communist deliberately ignores actions, speeches, and writing to the contrary. I don't know about you but where I come from they call that "lying". If they said he "was" a communist, or was once an avowed communist, that would be truth. But, that wouldn't help his agenda of fearmongering would it?



You think? You have yet to back up your claims.




OldandTired, i think you are the one being fed "words" and looking foolish here. I provided a complete transcript of Dunn's speech in post 223 which you seem to have ignored.


You claimed:



Whenever possible, I try to find a written transcript. Written words are easier to analyze and examine and research back into than video clips. A search for a transcript of Dunn's school speech yielded interesting results. First - many (rightwing) sources provided a transcript that ended at the second or third paragraph. That might seem complete superficially but it's odd because it doesn't "work" as a speech. She brings up both Mother Theresa and Mao in her opening, but never, as you noted, goes on to bring anything of Mother Theresa into the speech. How odd. A further search looking for "complete transcript" yields the missing paragraph that ties the whole speech together and gives lie to your claim "But her accolades for Moa continued...she never brought up Mother Teresa after that......it was not her first line that was diusturbing....it was her obvilous adoration for Mao AND HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS that she discussed."

Tell me again, OldandTired, who's media is doing what here?

Stop commenting on something you did not watch entirely....it is not in the best interest of your credibility.

Did YOU watch it in it's entirety? I will echo your quote: "And yes...it is quite obvious you just listened to a snippet...if you listened to the entire thing, my guess is you would not even post in this thread"

THERE IS NO WAY ONE CAN SPIN WHAT SHE SAID.....liten to it...in its entirety....you will see my point.

The entire transcript proves another interesting point in that via the internet rumormill - she is repeatedly accused of saying something she didn't actually say which is that they are two of her favorite political philosophers whom she turns to most but they leave out the qualifying clause which changes the meaning somewhat - she turns to them to deliver a specific point - and it is a good and worthwhile point.

What she said was: "And then the 3rd lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers. Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa, not often couple with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is you’re going to make choices, you’re going to challenge, you’re going to say why not. You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal, these are your choices, they’re no one else’s"

The sad thing is - this is a damn good talk to give to highschool kids. It's too bad that the wingnuts can only see indoctrination of maoist ideology and adoration of a mass murderer. It hints of venomous desperation and sadly bitter political divides.

Huh? They needed to verify what the woman said as true beforew they report that she said it? They reported that she admitted ON FILM that hse killed he husband. They did not report that she kjilled him...they reported that she said on film that she killed him...and yes, they verified it by watching the film. Your claim is childish...they need to verify if she is telling the trfuth when in fact all they were doing was reporting what shje claimed?

And the rest of your diatribe is all crap. Youj do not watch fox news as all you are doingt is regurgiating what they have been saying on Huff and MSNBC....which, by the way, is quite inaccurate.

So I am done with you as you must lie to make a point and I do not debate with liars.

 

[Coyote]

Huh? They needed to verify what the woman said as true beforew they report that she said it? They reported that she admitted ON FILM that hse killed he husband. They did not report that she kjilled him...they reported that she said on film that she killed him...and yes, they verified it by watching the film. Your claim is childish...they need to verify if she is telling the trfuth when in fact all they were doing was reporting what shje claimed?

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? I was talking about the claim that they the two journalists had never been rebuffed. But since you mentioned the woman killing her husband - YES - it should have been verified and followed up. It would certainly be very easy to check. That is what responsible journalism is SUPPOSED to do. And that is what got Dan Rather rightfully canned - you don't present something with out checking first.

And the rest of your diatribe is all crap. Youj do not watch fox news as all you are doingt is regurgiating what they have been saying on Huff and MSNBC....which, by the way, is quite inaccurate.

You are certainly good at evading the points aren't you?

If it's crap - then refute it with facts, not opinion.

You made false claims about Anita Dunn's speech and claimed that I hadn't heard the entirety. It's quite clear you are the one who is only listening to portions.

I don't watch MSNBC and I don't tend to read Huffington often either. But I do know how to research stuff. It isn't hard.

So I am done with you as you must lie to make a point and I do not debate with liars.

Your credibility is zip. You can't even address the points can you?

 

[Oldandtired]

Huh? They needed to verify what the woman said as true beforew they report that she said it? They reported that she admitted ON FILM that hse killed he husband. They did not report that she kjilled him...they reported that she said on film that she killed him...and yes, they verified it by watching the film. Your claim is childish...they need to verify if she is telling the trfuth when in fact all they were doing was reporting what shje claimed?

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? I was talking about the claim that they the two journalists had never been rebuffed. But since you mentioned the woman killing her husband - YES - it should have been verified and followed up. It would certainly be very easy to check. That is what responsible journalism is SUPPOSED to do. And that is what got Dan Rather rightfully canned - you don't present something with out checking first.

And the rest of your diatribe is all crap. Youj do not watch fox news as all you are doingt is regurgiating what they have been saying on Huff and MSNBC....which, by the way, is quite inaccurate.

You are certainly good at evading the points aren't you?

If it's crap - then refute it with facts, not opinion.

You made false claims about Anita Dunn's speech and claimed that I hadn't heard the entirety. It's quite clear you are the one who is only listening to portions.

I don't watch MSNBC and I don't tend to read Huffington often either. But I do know how to research stuff. It isn't hard.

So I am done with you as you must lie to make a point and I do not debate with liars.

Your credibility is zip. You can't even address the points can you?

Yep..I erred....guess that makes me a moron.

So they question the filmer who says they were not turned away...and that is exactly what they reported...THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED AWAY..
Fox then found out that they WERE turned away...and they reported such

As I said earlier...they did not report that the woman killed her husband. They reported that the wopman CLAIMED to have killed her husband and they had proof....they had her on film CLAIMING to have killed her husband. Whether she was lying or not was irrelevant...the fact that an Acorn employee says to a prospective user of Acorn service that she killed her husband was the story....NOT her husbands death.

And YOU did not hear the entire speech. I did. It is quite obvious that you didnt yet you still insist on writing things that were NOT part of her speech.

 

[del]

"The Obama administration's war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman's advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration's substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters. . . .

"Has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn't match its opinion?"

PostPartisan - Obama's dumb war with Fox News

agnewesque

 

[Coyote]

Huh? They needed to verify what the woman said as true beforew they report that she said it? They reported that she admitted ON FILM that hse killed he husband. They did not report that she kjilled him...they reported that she said on film that she killed him...and yes, they verified it by watching the film. Your claim is childish...they need to verify if she is telling the trfuth when in fact all they were doing was reporting what shje claimed?

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? I was talking about the claim that they the two journalists had never been rebuffed. But since you mentioned the woman killing her husband - YES - it should have been verified and followed up. It would certainly be very easy to check. That is what responsible journalism is SUPPOSED to do. And that is what got Dan Rather rightfully canned - you don't present something with out checking first.



You are certainly good at evading the points aren't you?

If it's crap - then refute it with facts, not opinion.

You made false claims about Anita Dunn's speech and claimed that I hadn't heard the entirety. It's quite clear you are the one who is only listening to portions.

I don't watch MSNBC and I don't tend to read Huffington often either. But I do know how to research stuff. It isn't hard.

So I am done with you as you must lie to make a point and I do not debate with liars.

Your credibility is zip. You can't even address the points can you?

Yep..I erred....guess that makes me a moron.

So they question the filmer who says they were not turned away...and that is exactly what they reported...THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED AWAY..
Fox then found out that they WERE turned away...and they reported such

Let me ask you this then. Dan Rather recieved a document, claimed to be authentic that purported to show Bush had been AWOl. Are you suggesting that he should not have needed to check it for veracity before reporting on it? If that is what you believe then no wonder the media is in a credibility sinkhole.

As I said earlier...they did not report that the woman killed her husband. They reported that the wopman CLAIMED to have killed her husband and they had proof....they had her on film CLAIMING to have killed her husband. Whether she was lying or not was irrelevant...the fact that an Acorn employee says to a prospective user of Acorn service that she killed her husband was the story....NOT her husbands death.

Perhaps, but it edged the line in that they started speculating on it.

And YOU did not hear the entire speech. I did. It is quite obvious that you didnt yet you still insist on writing things that were NOT part of her speech.

Was or was not the transcript I provided complete?

 

[Oldandtired]

"The Obama administration's war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman's advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration's substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters. . . .

"Has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn't match its opinion?"

PostPartisan - Obama's dumb war with Fox News

agnewesque

That was Gibb's error in this whole thing...and an error that was quite revealing. He responded to this "war with Fox" in yesterdays presser by mentioning the 5 and 9 oclock shows...Beck and Hannity. So the ABC correspondent said that theyw ere not news shows and never marketed as such..they are commentary shows...and Gibbs wrote it off as commentary or not, it is not news and Fox should not be airing them as a "news" organization....yet they have no issue with Olbermann and Maddow being on the MSNBC news station....so what exactlky is the REAL reson they are waging a war on Fox? Could it be that they wish not to answer the question fox asks?

Or maybe they are following Alinsky's way.....identify, isolate, eliminate.....

Interesting.

 

[mdn2000]

Obama is a Marxist hence the reason Obama has Anita Dunn who is a Marxist. If this was one case of one person being a Marxist than we could easily say it was a mistake on Obama's part but it is not. We also have Bill Ayers which is a Marxist. Again if it was only two people who are Marxist associated with Obama than this might not be serious but how about Ron Bloom, Ron Bloom standing alone is not very serious but coupled with Ayers and Dunn than things are starting to be real clear, Obama is a Marxist. Yet thats only three people, what if there where four, okay Cass Sunstein, what if there where five, Van Jones, sixth would be Mark Lloyd, seven Carol Browner, eight Sam Graham-Felsen, nine Obama's father, ten Frank Marshall Davis, eleven Mike Klonsky, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen.

How many marxists does it take to make a president a marxist? The answer is none, Obama is a Marxist all by himself, its not Obama's associates that make Obama a Marxist, its Obama's actions, appointing Marxist simply does not make Obama a Marxist but it is a clear indication Obama prefers Marxist, taking state control of Banks and Car companies by itself does not make Obama a Marxist nor does Obama qouting Marxist make Obama a Marxist.

Obama is just simply a Marxist because that is what Obama has studied, what Obama practises, Marxism is what Obama does.

Anita Dunn, big deal, there are plenty of other Marxist that Obama has surrounded himself with, there are plenty of Marxist policies, Marxist actions, Marxist quotes, Marxist, Marxist, Marxist.

 

[Oldandtired]

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? I was talking about the claim that they the two journalists had never been rebuffed. But since you mentioned the woman killing her husband - YES - it should have been verified and followed up. It would certainly be very easy to check. That is what responsible journalism is SUPPOSED to do. And that is what got Dan Rather rightfully canned - you don't present something with out checking first.



You are certainly good at evading the points aren't you?

If it's crap - then refute it with facts, not opinion.

You made false claims about Anita Dunn's speech and claimed that I hadn't heard the entirety. It's quite clear you are the one who is only listening to portions.

I don't watch MSNBC and I don't tend to read Huffington often either. But I do know how to research stuff. It isn't hard.



Your credibility is zip. You can't even address the points can you?

Yep..I erred....guess that makes me a moron.

So they question the filmer who says they were not turned away...and that is exactly what they reported...THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED AWAY..
Fox then found out that they WERE turned away...and they reported such

Let me ask you this then. Dan Rather recieved a document, claimed to be authentic that purported to show Bush had been AWOl. Are you suggesting that he should not have needed to check it for veracity before reporting on it? If that is what you believe then no wonder the media is in a credibility sinkhole.

As I said earlier...they did not report that the woman killed her husband. They reported that the wopman CLAIMED to have killed her husband and they had proof....they had her on film CLAIMING to have killed her husband. Whether she was lying or not was irrelevant...the fact that an Acorn employee says to a prospective user of Acorn service that she killed her husband was the story....NOT her husbands death.

Perhaps, but it edged the line in that they started speculating on it.

And YOU did not hear the entire speech. I did. It is quite obvious that you didnt yet you still insist on writing things that were NOT part of her speech.

Was or was not the transcript I provided complete?

Here is where you err....

If Rather received the document from the author and the author of the document allowed his name to be used when reporting oin the document.....no....nothing further needed to be researched as there is no better way to authenticate it than having the author authenticate it. I mean...what else could he do to auihenticate it but ask the author?

Well, the filmers were asked by fox if they were turned away...and they said no. THE FILMERS ARE THE FIRST PARTY....not ta third party.....With Rather, he received the document from a 3rd party so yes, he needed to verify.

Do you not see the difference?

And no...the transcript you provided was not even close to being complete...I WATCHED THE ENTIRE SPEECH...it wasd not a 3 paragraph speech.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hopey Changey does control the Media. I have been saying this all along. It's good to see more people catching on. All Americans and especially Journalists should be deeply offended by this. The administration is becoming increasingly arrogant and power-mad.

 

[Ame®icano]

"The Obama administration's war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman's advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration's substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters. . . .

"Has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn't match its opinion?"

PostPartisan - Obama's dumb war with Fox News

agnewesque

That was Gibb's error in this whole thing...and an error that was quite revealing. He responded to this "war with Fox" in yesterdays presser by mentioning the 5 and 9 oclock shows...Beck and Hannity. So the ABC correspondent said that theyw ere not news shows and never marketed as such..they are commentary shows...and Gibbs wrote it off as commentary or not, it is not news and Fox should not be airing them as a "news" organization....yet they have no issue with Olbermann and Maddow being on the MSNBC news station....so what exactlky is the REAL reson they are waging a war on Fox? Could it be that they wish not to answer the question fox asks?

Or maybe they are following Alinsky's way.....identify, isolate, eliminate.....

Interesting.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFNwP_ciArY]YouTube - ABC News' Jake Tapper Questions Baghdad Bob [Robert Gibbs] on Obama Attacking Fox News[/ame]

 

[Oldandtired]

Obama is a Marxist hence the reason Obama has Anita Dunn who is a Marxist. If this was one case of one person being a Marxist than we could easily say it was a mistake on Obama's part but it is not. We also have Bill Ayers which is a Marxist. Again if it was only two people who are Marxist associated with Obama than this might not be serious but how about Ron Bloom, Ron Bloom standing alone is not very serious but coupled with Ayers and Dunn than things are starting to be real clear, Obama is a Marxist. Yet thats only three people, what if there where four, okay Cass Sunstein, what if there where five, Van Jones, sixth would be Mark Lloyd, seven Carol Browner, eight Sam Graham-Felsen, nine Obama's father, ten Frank Marshall Davis, eleven Mike Klonsky, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen.

How many marxists does it take to make a president a marxist? The answer is none, Obama is a Marxist all by himself, its not Obama's associates that make Obama a Marxist, its Obama's actions, appointing Marxist simply does not make Obama a Marxist but it is a clear indication Obama prefers Marxist, taking state control of Banks and Car companies by itself does not make Obama a Marxist nor does Obama qouting Marxist make Obama a Marxist.

Obama is just simply a Marxist because that is what Obama has studied, what Obama practises, Marxism is what Obama does.

Anita Dunn, big deal, there are plenty of other Marxist that Obama has surrounded himself with, there are plenty of Marxist policies, Marxist actions, Marxist quotes, Marxist, Marxist, Marxist.

It was Obama himself who said that he should be judged by the people he siurrounds himself with.
So...Okay...lets judge.
20 years with Wright....strange he didnt realize wright was a bigot...but shit happens so I give it a pass.
Knew Ayers well...denied it then admitted it. Hey...he cant be responsible for the actions of one person he knew so I will give him a pass.
Made a deal with Resko who is in jail for deals he made. Not Obama's fault that he made a deal with a man that was a crook...so I give him a pass
Hired Van Jones. Jones is not a marxist say many...but Jones himself said he was a marxist several years ago. Not Obamas fault one guy ONE TIME claimed to be a marxist, so I will give him a pass
Dunn.....claims Mao is one of her two facorite political philoisophers. She claims it was a joke, but no where does she say it during her speech...and certainly no indication it was a joke....But hey...we cant blame Obama so lets give him a pass....

Now I look at myself....Never had a pastor that contiunually made racial remarks to the congregation.......Never had a friend part of a domestic radical group like the weather underground......Never had a friend that EVER calimed to be a Marxist...... Never made a deal with a crook who went to jail.....never had anyt frioend call Mao a favorite ANYTHING...

Yep.....there is an issue here....we give hinm a pass over and over...when do we say.....huh? Where are his friends that LOVE America?

Call me nuts....but my mom would have had a cow if I had a list of friends like Obama has.

 

[Coyote]

Yep..I erred....guess that makes me a moron.

So they question the filmer who says they were not turned away...and that is exactly what they reported...THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED AWAY..
Fox then found out that they WERE turned away...and they reported such

Let me ask you this then. Dan Rather recieved a document, claimed to be authentic that purported to show Bush had been AWOl. Are you suggesting that he should not have needed to check it for veracity before reporting on it? If that is what you believe then no wonder the media is in a credibility sinkhole.



Perhaps, but it edged the line in that they started speculating on it.

And YOU did not hear the entire speech. I did. It is quite obvious that you didnt yet you still insist on writing things that were NOT part of her speech.

Was or was not the transcript I provided complete?

Here is where you err....

If Rather received the document from the author and the author of the document allowed his name to be used when reporting oin the document.....no....nothing further needed to be researched as there is no better way to authenticate it than having the author authenticate it. I mean...what else could he do to auihenticate it but ask the author?

Well, the filmers were asked by fox if they were turned away...and they said no. THE FILMERS ARE THE FIRST PARTY....not ta third party.....With Rather, he received the document from a 3rd party so yes, he needed to verify.

Do you not see the difference?

Ok, fair enough - I'll give on that. But there are other examples of lies and unprofessionalism surrounding Fox's journalism - not the least that they blur the line between opinion and news. Calling Van Jones a "convicted felon" for example, or photoshopping those pictures of the NYT reporters to look more sinister. Are these things the sorts of journalistic techniques and ethics that we should be condoning much less admiring?

And no...the transcript you provided was not even close to being complete...I WATCHED THE ENTIRE SPEECH...it wasd not a 3 paragraph speech.

If you watched the entire speech, why did you then claim she only mentioned Mother Theresa that one time then went on to extol Mao and not mention her again? Is there an entire transcript if what I provided was not it?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I still don't understand why so many are still confused. Hopey Changey does control the Media. I have been saying this all along. His Henchmen and Women are just being honest about this. I have to give this woman some credit for at least being honest. This really should be offensive to all Americans and especially Journalists. This administration really is becoming increasingly arrogant.

 

[Oldandtired]

Let me ask you this then. Dan Rather recieved a document, claimed to be authentic that purported to show Bush had been AWOl. Are you suggesting that he should not have needed to check it for veracity before reporting on it? If that is what you believe then no wonder the media is in a credibility sinkhole.



Perhaps, but it edged the line in that they started speculating on it.



Was or was not the transcript I provided complete?

Here is where you err....

If Rather received the document from the author and the author of the document allowed his name to be used when reporting oin the document.....no....nothing further needed to be researched as there is no better way to authenticate it than having the author authenticate it. I mean...what else could he do to auihenticate it but ask the author?

Well, the filmers were asked by fox if they were turned away...and they said no. THE FILMERS ARE THE FIRST PARTY....not ta third party.....With Rather, he received the document from a 3rd party so yes, he needed to verify.

Do you not see the difference?

Ok, fair enough - I'll give on that. But there are other examples of lies and unprofessionalism surrounding Fox's journalism - not the least that they blur the line between opinion and news. Calling Van Jones a "convicted felon" for example, or photoshopping those pictures of the NYT reporters to look more sinister. Are these things the sorts of journalistic techniques and ethics that we should be condoning much less admiring?

And no...the transcript you provided was not even close to being complete...I WATCHED THE ENTIRE SPEECH...it wasd not a 3 paragraph speech.

If you watched the entire speech, why did you then claim she only mentioned Mother Theresa that one time then went on to extol Mao and not mention her again? Is there an entire transcript if what I provided was not it?

I watched the entire speech as it pertained to Teresa and Mao.....and then some more after but I found her dull at best...so I lost interest.

But you and I are on different planes here.....I am not talking about Beck...he is a commentator and all commentators use sensationalism in one way shape or form...and the sensationalism, which attracts viewers, will sometimes skew the truth, but not outright lie.....Do you really think Matthews felt a tingle up his leg? Do you really think Cheney intentionally shot his friend in the face? It made for good laughs as they reported the news....as commentators do.

But you keep referring to "they"...I am referring to Fox news.....not Beck. Fox news is from 9AM to 8PM with a break from 4-6 for Cavuto and Beck.....and Fox news is an honest agency....juust like NBC, CBS, ABC and othersw.....

Where fox news differs is...yes, they have conservative anchors...many of them are (Not Shepard Smith)...and so YES...they drive home news items that are not flattering to Obama....but they do it becuase no one else will....so yes...they EMPHASIZE the less flattering news on Obama...but they certainly do not lie.

To the contrary, the others do not mention most of what FOx news drivves home.....they do not tell the people about Van Jones speeches...and they should...but they dont. They dont mention Dunn's speech...but they should....But are they liars? NO...they report HONEST info that THEY want you to know about....just like Fox News.....Honest info that THEY want you to know about.

And let us not forget....for the last 8 years, the exact tables were turned....NBC drove home numbers dead in Iraq...Fiox news simpoly mentioned them....NBC wAS all over Palins wardrobe scandal...FOx news mentioned it and moved on...

Butr to label Fox News liars and dismiss what they report despite its valifdity is not very smart if you ask me.

For example...do ya really think it is normal for our President to have anyone around him that praises Mao, that once was a declared communist, that once was a memebr of the weather underground, that spews racial hate, and so on?

I mean...really?

 

[Coyote]

Here is where you err....

If Rather received the document from the author and the author of the document allowed his name to be used when reporting oin the document.....no....nothing further needed to be researched as there is no better way to authenticate it than having the author authenticate it. I mean...what else could he do to auihenticate it but ask the author?

Well, the filmers were asked by fox if they were turned away...and they said no. THE FILMERS ARE THE FIRST PARTY....not ta third party.....With Rather, he received the document from a 3rd party so yes, he needed to verify.

Do you not see the difference?

Ok, fair enough - I'll give on that. But there are other examples of lies and unprofessionalism surrounding Fox's journalism - not the least that they blur the line between opinion and news. Calling Van Jones a "convicted felon" for example, or photoshopping those pictures of the NYT reporters to look more sinister. Are these things the sorts of journalistic techniques and ethics that we should be condoning much less admiring?

And no...the transcript you provided was not even close to being complete...I WATCHED THE ENTIRE SPEECH...it wasd not a 3 paragraph speech.

If you watched the entire speech, why did you then claim she only mentioned Mother Theresa that one time then went on to extol Mao and not mention her again? Is there an entire transcript if what I provided was not it?

I watched the entire speech as it pertained to Teresa and Mao.....and then some more after but I found her dull at best...so I lost interest.

Can you link to it? I would like to see if it compares to what I heard and the transcript.

But you and I are on different planes here.....I am not talking about Beck...he is a commentator and all commentators use sensationalism in one way shape or form...and the sensationalism, which attracts viewers, will sometimes skew the truth, but not outright lie.....Do you really think Matthews felt a tingle up his leg? Do you really think Cheney intentionally shot his friend in the face? It made for good laughs as they reported the news....as commentators do.

But that is the issue I have. It used to be news was reported straight or mostly straight as news. On cable at least, it is increasingly intermixed with opinion - so much so that what is news and what is opinion is frequently difficult to distinquish. The networks want to call it news for legitimacy...but they when criticized - fall back on the "it's opinion" excuse, an excuse that grants them a very liberal license to deceive. Is calling someone who isn't, a convicted felon in the process of presenting and commenting on the news - just "commentary"? The media's "believability" ratings overall are in a sinkhole and this is why.

But you keep referring to "they"...I am referring to Fox news.....not Beck. Fox news is from 9AM to 8PM with a break from 4-6 for Cavuto and Beck.....and Fox news is an honest agency....juust like NBC, CBS, ABC and othersw.....

Where fox news differs is...yes, they have conservative anchors...many of them are (Not Shepard Smith)...and so YES...they drive home news items that are not flattering to Obama....but they do it becuase no one else will....so yes...they EMPHASIZE the less flattering news on Obama...but they certainly do not lie.

How honest is Fox News and is there a clear demarcation between their comment shows and their straight news?

Look at their current headline: White House Continues Fox News Attacks

But the Whitehouse isn't attacking Fox News but Hannity and Beck -- opinion.

Fox seems to want the line between opinion and news blurred and sharp both, when it suits them. Most professional news organizations don't do that or they didn't used to - news is presented clear of opinion other than light banter. If an organization is going to promote a mix, then there is going to be fall out in credibility and that applies not just to Fox, but MSNBC and any other news organization.

Look for example at the full page ad that, Fox News took out in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal claiming that the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN did not cover the Tea Party protests. A claim since proved a lie.

Or Fox News reporting Obama was a Muslim or attended a Madrassa? I think that was on the straight news and it was later retracted, after the damage was done.

To the contrary, the others do not mention most of what FOx news drivves home.....they do not tell the people about Van Jones speeches...and they should...but they dont.

Yet Fox neglects to mention Van Jone's capitalism, and his more recent writings....don't they? Things which directly contradict what they are saying. Is that really news then?

They dont mention Dunn's speech...but they should....But are they liars? NO...they report HONEST info that THEY want you to know about....just like Fox News.....Honest info that THEY want you to know about.

Why should they? What is "news" about that? A speech to students about achievement. Is that more important than the economy? Afghanistan? Spending? In fact, it's not news really - it's opinion, opinion about what Dunn is saying, not what she is actually saying and this is clear when you search and find only partial quotes.

And let us not forget....for the last 8 years, the exact tables were turned....NBC drove home numbers dead in Iraq...Fiox news simpoly mentioned them....NBC wAS all over Palins wardrobe scandal...FOx news mentioned it and moved on...

Butr to label Fox News liars and dismiss what they report despite its valifdity is not very smart if you ask me.

I don't dismiss everything they report - where I've questioned validity and truth, I've provided specific examples.

For example...do ya really think it is normal for our President to have anyone around him that praises Mao,

If that were true, I'd so I would not like it - however, it is taken completely out of context and that is little more than a smear job.

that once was a declared communist,

Again, "once" is the key term here but you all seem to miss that in your venomous zeal to attack any and all aspects of the Obama administration.

that once was a memebr of the weather underground, that spews racial hate, and so on?

...and how many years ago was that?

Remember, the last president we elected was an alcaholic and used drugs and had, amongst his administration convicted criminals like John Poindexter? Are you suggesting people don't/can't change? Or that only liberals should be tarred that way?

I mean...really?

Ya...really